13 Jun 17
Originally posted by humydefinition of free will, according to
it is not one you would ever agree with unless one day you actually think about it. So if that definition is just the 'starting point', what is wrong with it? If you say it then needs to change, clearly you are thinking there is something wrong with it else it wouldn't need changing.It is just an expression of the concept of 'volition'....[text shortened]... ense'.I choose to use the definition offered by science,
No, you don't.[/b]
science: is internally generated, rather than being determined by the immediate environmental context
compatibilism; is freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions
I provided a link on the first; you provided a link on the second. The resemblance and similarity is obvious, to say the least. Both are talking about free will; the first, which is studied by science, is also known as volition.
13 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyThat's a real point. Perhaps 'random' processes are involved. That doesn't affect the scientific view.
NO, it clearly doesn't. Why cannot 'will' as in 'desire' that can control our decisions originate in part from truly random processes? Nothing they suggest there rules that possibility out.
You seem unaware that if 'truly random' processes occur, then determinism is false. And if determinism is false, then compatibilism is irrelevant.
13 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyScience studies reality - everything they can get their hands on. They have their hands on something here. In other threads I've given plenty of evidence that this is true. So has wildgrass. You are wrong here, humy. That volition is free will, and that the issue is scientifically studied, with progress being made, is a fact.
1, you cannot rationally claim "Volition is studied by science" until someone can give an adequate definition of the vague word 'volition' so that then it at least has a chance to be studied by real science..
The idea that it is irrational to claim that science studies something unless you are happy with definitions is hubris beyond comprehension. You actually think the massive amounts of scientific study and data on the issue are irrelevant because you are incredulous? Good grief.
14 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistreally? according to WHICH science?
definition of free will, according to
science: is internally generated, rather than being determined by the immediate environmental context
compatibilism; is freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions
Strange that you don't appear to understand the meaning of those words.
Both are talking about free will; the first, which is studied by science, is also known as volition.
it isn't known as volition by science and the 'free fill' they were talking about is not the same as what you are talking about.
14 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by apathiststrawman; I never said/implied anything about a need for me to be "happy" with a definition; and you KNOW this. Please don't be dishonest.
The idea that it is irrational to claim that science studies something unless you are happy with definitions is ....
14 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyI understand your fright. Please calm down. Take your meds.
really? according to WHICH science?
Strange that you don't appear to understand the meaning of those words.
it isn't known as volition by science and the 'free fill' they were talking about is not the same as what you are talking about.
16 Jun 17
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe opposite of determinism is indeterminism, per standard definitions.
By the standard definitions of those words, it is a true dichotomy and they are opposites. That you refuse to use standard definitions is fine, just don't impose your definitions on what I say.
Randomness is another subject.